The Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments

by Sue O'Connell | 2006-01-27

OVERVIEW

The spate of 2004 ballot measures that banned same-sex marriages in fully one-fourth of the states generated more than $13 million in campaign contributions. Slightly more than half of the money came from just three groups of contributors: organizations and individuals supporting gay and lesbian rights; conservative Christian organizations, such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council; and organized religion.

Together, contributors in those groups poured nearly $7.2 million into the marriage debate in 13 different states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Four of the states with amendments on the ballot were considered to be among the 20 or so battleground states in the presidential contest — Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon.1

Supporters of the measures raised slightly more than opponents — $6.8 million compared with $6.6 million. However, the election results were entirely one-sided. The constitutional amendments passed in every state, some by margins of 3:1.

An analysis of the campaign-finance reports filed by the ballot measure committees shows:

Groups and individuals supporting gay and lesbian rights gave the largest chunk of cash: slightly more than $3 million. The national Human Rights Campaign gave about one-third of this total, or nearly $1.1 million, as it contributed to ballot committees in five states. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force gave another $789,360, in six states. The remainder came primarily from state-based groups or others supporting gay and lesbian rights.

Contributors affiliated with conservative Christian organizations gave $2.2 million. Nearly $2 million of this amount, or 89 percent, came from members of the so-called “Arlington Group,” a coalition with close ties to the Bush White House and made up of conservative groups that have, in some instances, taken credit for the broad sweep of same-sex marriage measures in 2004. Member organizations of the Arlington Group or organizations with ties to them were active on numerous fronts, by:

forming campaign committees to support the measures in 11 of the 13 states.

giving money to ballot committees supporting the measures in 11 of the 13 states.

undertaking advertising campaigns targeting congressional candidates on the marriage issue in at least six of the states with ballot measures on the issue: Arkansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio and Oklahoma.2

Churches — including ministers and other employees, as well as fellowship groups and church-related businesses — gave $1.9 million in nine states.

Fully $1 million of this amount came from seven Roman Catholic dioceses in Michigan. Their contributions to a committee supporting the same-sex marriage ban represented 36 percent of the total contributions raised by the marriage amendment committees in Michigan.

Church-related contributors gave 39 percent of the total raised in Arkansas, but much lower percentages in the other states in which they gave.

Slightly less than $12,000 of the nearly $2 million in church-related contributions went to committees opposed to the marriage amendments — amounting to less than 1 percent of the giving by churches.

While gay- and lesbian-rights contributors topped the list as a single group, contributions to pro-amendment committees from churches and conservative Christian groups together totaled more — $4.1 million, or about 35 percent more than the amount given by gay- and lesbian-rights supporters.

The most costly battleground proved to be Oregon, where Measure 36 drew nearly $5.4 million in contributions. Opponents of the ban raised just under $3 million, or 55 percent of the total, while supporters raised $2.4 million.

The vote in Oregon was the closest among all states, with 57 percent of Oregon voters approving

passage and 43 percent opposing the initiative.

Elsewhere, voters passed the constitutional amendments with much more decisive margins of victory following campaigns marked by heavy rhetoric, calls from the pulpit to rally support, and a suggestion that the measures were part of a politically motivated effort to turn out conservative “values” voters in support of President Bush.

Some of the amendments drew heavy financial support, while ballot battles in other states were relatively inexpensive, as the table on the following page shows.

TABLE 1: CONTRIBUTIONS TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS BY STATE, 2004

STATE

FOR

AGAINST

TOTAL

Oregon

$2,434,454

$2,933,998

$5,368,452

Michigan

$1,930,429

$854,212

$2,784,641

Ohio

$1,202,761

$942,421

$2,145,182

Utah

$506,922

$780,740

$1,287,662

Kentucky

$201,132

$522,864

$723,996

Missouri

$29,612

$488,189

$517,801

Arkansas

$334,731

$2,952

$337,683

Georgia

$92,765

$0

$92,765

Louisiana

$43,117

$23,547

$66,664

Montana

$10,870

$51,498

$62,368

Oklahoma

$21,644

$11,616

$33,260

Mississippi

$7,215

$0

$7,215

North Dakota

$0

$8,974

$8,974

TOTAL

$6,815,652

$6,621,011

$13,436,663

TABLE 2: OUTCOME OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS BY STATE, 2004

STATE

% FOR*

% AGAINST*

Oregon

57%

43%

Michigan

59%

41%

Ohio

62%

38%

Utah

66%

34%

Kentucky

75%

25%

Missouri

71%

29%

Arkansas

75%

25%

Georgia

76%

24%

Louisiana

78%

22%

Montana

67%

33%

Oklahoma

76%

24%

Mississippi

86%

14%

North Dakota

73%

27%

*Sources: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and The Marriage Amendment Project

Most of the money came from organizations, rather than the average citizen on the street.

Individual contributors gave about $4.1 million, or about 31 percent of the funds. But some individuals gave heavily, accounting for a significant portion of the funds. Twenty-one individuals gave $10,000 or more, for contributions totaling slightly more than $1 million, representing about one-fourth of the money given by individual contributors.

The ballot committees reported another $1.1 million in unitemized contributions — donations in amounts that fell below a particular state’s threshold for reporting the names and other identifying information of the contributors. Many of these contributions came from individuals giving small amounts or money collected at fund-raising events.

METHODOLOGY

For this analysis, the Institute collected the campaign-finance reports that ballot measure committees filed with the state disclosure agency in their respective states. The committees’ contributions and expenditures were entered into a database for analysis.

Institute staff use the employer and occupation information provided on disclosure reports to assign an occupation code to contributors. When that information is not provided, staff members conduct additional research to determine a contributor’s economic interest, where possible. The occupation codes are based on the Standard Industrial Classification system used by the federal government.

A RUSH TO AMEND

Before 2004, only six states had placed a definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their state constitutions, although 33 states had defined marriage as such in their state laws.3

But two pivotal events occurred in 2003 that added fuel to an ongoing debate over the definition of marriage:

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that criminalized homosexual sex, citing the right to privacy.

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down that state’s law prohibiting same-sex marriages

Those two court rulings helped revive a flagging effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to include a definition of marriage. A federal amendment had been introduced in 2002 and again in 2003, but had languished in Congress.

Congress had already passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, defining marriage in law. But same-sex marriage opponents had remained concerned that judicial rulings could void that law. Supporters contended that only a federal constitutional amendment would ensure that no federal or state court ruling could impose a different standard.

The court rulings in 2003 gave new impetus to the drive to constitutionally define marriage. President Bush came out in support of a federal amendment in February 2004.4
The effort gained even more momentum after a series of highly publicized same-sex marriages in the winter and spring of 2004, not only in Massachusetts, but also in New York, Oregon, New Mexico and California.

In July 2004, the latest version of the Federal Marriage Amendment came up for a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate, to determine whether it should go on to a full vote. However, supporters failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to move the measure forward. Even had the amendment come to a vote and secured the required two-thirds approval of each house, it still would have needed the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Supporters acknowledged that the constitutional ratification process would be lengthy, and not necessarily successful.

But things move faster at the state level. And in 2004, same-sex marriage opponents turned their attention to the states, with efforts to amend state constitutions while the federal amendment remained in limbo. Those efforts helped place the issue on the ballot in 13 states.

In Mississippi, Missouri, Montana and Oregon, the ballot measures simply defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. Measures in the remaining states — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah — also prohibited recognition of civil unions. And the Oklahoma measure made it a misdemeanor crime to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.5

In some states, lawmakers placed the measures on the ballot via legislation. In others, same-sex marriage opponents used the initiative process. Whatever the route taken, the debate in all states was bitter.

Supporters painted the measures — both at the federal and state levels — as necessary to preserve moral values and circumvent judges who wanted to legislate from the bench. Opponents decried them as discriminatory. And many political observers questioned whether the measures were simply a way for conservative groups to mobilize their voters in what was expected to be a close presidential election and in states where U.S. Senate and House seats were up for grabs. Four of the amendments were on the ballot in states considered key to the presidential election: Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon.6

Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana criticized President Bush’s call for a national constitutional amendment in February 2004, contending the president was merely trying to draw conservative voters to the polls. “Elections are all about turnout,” he said. “This is about energizing people when you don’t have answers on other big issues, like health care and the economy.”7

And indeed, leaders of conservative Christian groups found the developments around the country to be the catalyst they needed to not only move forward on the marriage issue, but also to motivate voters.

James Dobson, head of the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, said the issue

of gay marriage was one of the most influential factors in the outcome of the 2004 election. In a

piece published on the Focus on the Family Action Web site, Dobson wrote: “I am among those

who believe the President would not have won re-election if it had not been for the power of this

A NETWORK FORMS

On the ground in the 13 states, efforts to promote and defeat the measures were led and supported by a variety of people active in their churches, involved in human rights groups or conservative causes, or simply impassioned by the topic.

But a few news stories during those months showed another force was at work, as well.

In September 2003, the Boston Globe reported the formation of the Arlington Group, “a coalition of evangelical Christian and other conservative organizations.”9
The group was called together by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of Mississippi; Wildmon is chairman of the American Family Association, which runs a network of more than 200 Christian radio stations and affiliate groups.10

The Globe article said leaders of the groups began meeting in July 2003 to address the threat they saw in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the possibility the Massachusetts high court may invalidate that state’s ban on gay marriage. Wildmon said religious conservatives mobilized too slowly after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion and needed to act sooner on same-sex marriages “because the danger is now.”

Subsequent news articles in publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and Time magazine frequently quoted members of the Arlington Group on the issue of same-sex marriage, but made only passing reference to the existence of the group. Those quoted were instead usually linked to the organization with which they were directly tied, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and conservative activist Gary Bauer.

By early to mid-2004, articles in regional newspapers also made mention of the group’s existence, but with little explanation of who was involved:

A Feb. 24 article in The Times Picayune of New Orleans mentioned that the Arlington Group was pressing its case for a national amendment with President Bush and his top adviser, Karl Rove.

A Washington Post article reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on March 9 said leaders of the Arlington Group had jointly hired or loaned several full-time staff members to work on the gay-marriage issue.

The Rev. William Owens, a member of the group, wrote a piece for the Memphis Commercial Appeal on June 20, saying the executive board of the Arlington Group had attended a meeting of the Coalition of

African-American Pastors to speak to them about supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

A news brief in the Dayton Daily News on July 12 noted that Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was the only non-senator to speak at a meeting of the U.S. Senate Republican Conference, where he discussed the need for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. Blackwell’s name is on lists of Arlington Group members.11

And on July 14, the Omaha World-Herald reported that at the request of the Arlington Group, several churches urged their congregations to call their U.S. senators to support the proposed federal marriage amendment.

ABOUT THE ARLINGTON GROUP

The Arlington Group is made up of the leaders of numerous conservative religious and social groups. Reports from various time periods list anywhere from 20 members (in early 2004)12
to more than 60 (in 2005).13
A list on the Ohio section of the American Policy Roundtable Web site and a 2005 letter to presidential adviser Karl Rove each contain the same list of 47 names. (See Appendix A on P. 55.)

An October 2003 press release on the Web site of Americans United to Preserve Marriage, an organization headed by Gary Bauer, made mention of a group of “two dozen conservative and religious groups” that pledged to use “their bully pulpits, media outlets and other grass-roots resources to rouse national and political support for traditional marriage.”14
The news release quotes seven people whose names appear on lists of Arlington Group members, but never identifies the coalition by that name.

The Origins of the Arlington Group

The Arlington Group’s formation and purpose are described in detail in a December 2004 column written by Arlington Group member Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation and published on the Web site of Renew America, a group headed by Reagan appointee and conservative commentator Alan Keyes.

Weyrich’s column says that several months earlier, the Rev. Wildmon of the American Family Association began contacting leaders of religious groups, suggesting that they begin to work together on “daunting social problems.”15

“He correctly said,” Weyrich wrote, “that if we all went our separate ways we would not amount to much. However, if we could all sing off the same sheet of music, we could be a significant force.”

Weyrich said the group of religious and conservative leaders first met at a condominium in the

Washington, D.C., suburb of Arlington, Va. That location led to the permanent name for the

ongoing coalition — the Arlington Group. Its meetings, he said, “are not secret but they are off the

record.”

“Early on,” he wrote, “the group agreed to work on the marriage issue. Indeed the effort to put marriage on the ballot in eleven States emanated from the Arlington Group. And the resources to go full-tilt in Ohio were raised from participants in the group.”

In fact, campaign contributions from member groups of the coalition went most heavily to Ohio, totaling $1.18 million, nearly all of the money given to support Ohio’s amendment and 59 percent of the $1.99 million in contributions given by organizations or individuals connected with the Arlington Group.

And two members of the Arlington Group were key players in the Ohio effort: Phil Burress of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, a Focus on the Family affiliate,16
and Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.17

Not only did Arlington Group member organizations funnel financial resources to Ohio, but they also gave heavily in two other states considered to be presidential battlegrounds — $546,600 in Michigan and $138,360 in Oregon. However, Arlington Group contributions in these states made up a much smaller percentage of the total money favoring the amendments, representing 28 percent of the funds in favor in Michigan and 6 percent in Oregon.

Group’s Contributions, Efforts Add Up

Members of the Arlington Group backed their beliefs with their money and their organizational force.

Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization headed by Arlington Group member James Dobson, created ballot measure committees to raise and spend money in seven of the 13 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Montana. It also gave $255,600 in either direct or in-kind contributions to its committees, as well as to other committees in Ohio and Oregon. In addition, separate state groups related to Focus on the Family created their own ballot committees in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Michigan. These state groups also contributed to other ballot committees in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana and Ohio.

The Family Research Council gave $376,400 to committees in Michigan, including $186,400 to a committee it established there.

Traditional Marriage Crusade ballot committees formed in nine states and raised $27,600 in eight states. In many of those states, it was the first ballot committee to organize in support of the measure. On its statement of organization in Mississippi, the group described itself as a “special campaign of The Foundation for a Christian Civilization,” which also is the corporate name of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP).18
C. Preston Noell III is on the TFP board of directors19
and is editor of Crusade, a TFP magazine.20
He also is a member of the Arlington Group.21
The society was founded by a group of Catholic Americans in 1973;22
its Web site noted that it was working to get marriage amendments on ballots across the country and working with other organizations by sending postcards and making calls “to friends and supporters urging them to act.”23

The American Family Association and its broadcasting arm, American Family Radio, gave $6,200 in Kentucky and Michigan. Its Kentucky affiliate also gave about $29,350 to support the amendment there.

And the Arlington Group’s influence wasn’t limited to money. News reports noted that group members held weekly conference calls that included White House staff members.24

Tables on the following page show how much money individuals or organizations associated with the Arlington Group gave in each of the states with a marriage-related ballot measure in 2004, as well as the total amount organizations associated with the group gave.

TABLE 3: ARLINGTON GROUP MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATE, 2004

STATE

AMOUNT

% OF TOTAL RAISED IN FAVOR

Ohio

$1,183,485

98%

Michigan

$546,599

28%

Oregon

$138,364

6%

Kentucky

$67,543

33%

Arkansas

$19,330

6%

Georgia

$17,650

19%

Montana

$8,959

82%

Mississippi

$5,266

73%

Oklahoma

$1,295

6%

Utah

$643

0.1%

Louisiana

$411

1%

TOTAL

$1,989,545

29%

TABLE 4: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ARLINGTON GROUP AND RELATED ORGANIZATIONS, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

TOTAL

Citizens for Community Values Action

$1,182,139

Family Research Council

$376,397

Focus on the Family

$255,604

Michigan Family Forum

$68,386

American Family Association of Kentucky

$29,344

The Family Foundation of Kentucky Inc.

$19,664

Public Interest Forum

$19,500

Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky Inc.

$14,395

Montana Family Foundation

$6,765

The Foundation for a Christian Civilization Inc.

$5,951

American Family Association

$5,000

American Family Radio*

$1,200

Arkansas Family Council

$950

TOTAL

$1,985,294

* American Family Radio is a division of the American Family Association.

THE FORCES AGAINST

While conservative groups banded together to support the marriage amendments, national gay-and lesbian-rights groups also were active. However, their efforts appeared less cohesive, and leaders of national groups acknowledged that at times, they were out-organized by the supporters of the amendments and had fewer resources to put into the states.25

A few groups spent heavily in targeted states, in an effort to ward off limits on the definition of marriage or outright bans on civil unions. But most of the money to fight the amendments was generated by groups and individuals within the affected states.

Significant contributions came in from the following national groups:

The Human Rights Campaign, which “works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.”26
This group put nearly $1.1 million into the ballot battles in five states: Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon and Utah.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which describes itself as “the nation’s first national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights and advocacy organization.”27
It gave almost $790,000 in six states: Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Oregon and Utah.

The Log Cabin Republicans, which supports gay and lesbian rights and describes itself as “the nation’s leading voice for fairness, inclusion and tolerance in the GOP.”28
The group gave $40,000 in Oregon.

Funds from national groups made up nearly 30 percent to 40 percent of the total raised to fight the amendments in four of the seven states involved, falling below that level in Kentucky, Montana and Utah. But little other gay-rights giving crossed state lines. Instead, most groups concentrated their efforts on the states in which they were located, with the heaviest giving in Oregon and Utah.

The national groups appeared to give most heavily in states considered to be battlegrounds, giving much less to committees in states likely to vote Republican, such as Utah and Montana.

The table on the following page shows where national gay- and lesbian-rights groups put their funds.

TABLE 5: NATIONAL GAY-AND LESBIAN-RIGHTS GROUP GIVING BY STATE, 2004

STATE

AMOUNT

% OF TOTAL RAISED IN OPPOSITION

Oregon

$1,015,636

35%

Ohio

$384,145

41%

Michigan

$244,081

29%

Missouri

$133,250

27%

Kentucky

$73,350

14%

Utah

$65,000

8%

Montana

$10,000

19%

TOTAL

$1,925,462

29%

Interestingly, the national gay- and lesbian-rights groups gave 29 percent of the total money raised to fight the measures in all 13 states, nearly identical to the percentage the Arlington Group members gave of the total dollars given in support of the amendments. And in all states where supporters of gay and lesbian rights contributed, the money — whether from individuals or from national, state or local groups — made up a sizable share of the money raised in opposition.

TABLE 6: GAY- AND LESBIAN-RIGHTS GIVING BY STATE, 2004

STATE

AMOUNT

% OF TOTAL AGAINST

Oregon

$1,400,679

48%

Ohio

$547,076

58%

Utah

$478,550

61%

Michigan

$286,625

34%

Kentucky

$157,681

30%

Missouri

$147,294

30%

Montana

$26,814

52%

Oklahoma

$8,816

76%

North Dakota

$2,000

22%

TOTAL

$3,053,535

46%

The table below shows the top contributors among all groups supporting gay- and lesbian-rights.

Some individual contributors also gave heavily but primarily in only one state. The biggest individual contributors were:

Bruce Bastian, the openly gay founder of WordPerfect software.29
Bastian gave $178,000 in Utah, Oregon and Ohio. He gave most heavily in his home state of Utah, contributing $125,500 to the Don’t Amend Alliance, the group fighting Amendment 3 there. He also gave $27,500 in Oregon and $25,000 in Ohio.

Tim Gill, who co-founded the Quark software company and promotes fair treatment of gays and lesbians through his Gill Foundation,30
ranked second among individual contributors, giving $150,000 to oppose the Oregon ballot measure.

David Maltz, who is involved with the Stonewall Democrats, a pro-gay rights group of Democrats. He gave $101,383 in Ohio.

TOP CONTRIBUTORS ACROSS THE 13 STATES

While the same-sex marriage debates stirred strong emotions in all 13 states, that emotion seemed to translate more readily into votes than into money. The cash to run the campaigns for and against the amendments came largely from big-dollar contributors, both individually and through organizations.

In fact, the top 20 individual and top 20 non-individual givers contributed $7.2 million of the approximately $13.4 million given to the ballot committees, or 54 percent of the total.

Citizens for Community Values Action led all contributors, pouring nearly $1.2 million into Ohio’s Issue 1 in 2004. The group is an offshoot of Citizens for Community Values,31
an Arlington Group member founded in 1983 by a group of Cincinnati-area ministers and now designed “to promote Judeo-Christian moral values.”32
In addition to being listed as an Arlington Group member in its own right, Citizens for Community Values is also affiliated with Arlington Group member Focus on the Family.33

The Human Rights Campaign put nearly $1.1 million into the ballot-measure battles in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon and Utah. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force ranked third in contributions, giving $789,360 to fight the amendments in Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Oregon and Utah.

Only one other contributor among the top non-individual givers spread funds to more than one state. Focus on the Family, the Arlington Group member based in Colorado Springs, Colo., gave $255,600 to committees backing the amendments in Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio and Oregon. The organization describes its mission as “disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.”34

CONTRIBUTIONS BY ORGANIZATIONS

The top 20 non-individual contributors gave $6.1 million. Among these top givers, supporters of the proposals to limit marriage to a man and a woman gave more — $3.8 million, or 62.5 percent of the $6.1 million. Those organizations opposed to the amendments gave nearly $2.3 million. The top contributors favoring the amendments gave most heavily in Michigan, Ohio and Oregon; nearly 90 percent of their contributions went to those three states. Those opposing the amendments gave most heavily in Oregon, channeling 51 percent of their dollars into that state, with Ohio and Utah receiving the next largest amounts of money.

CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS

The top 20 individual contributors gave $1.1 million, or about 8 percent of the total contributions reported by the marriage amendment committees. Amendment opponents gave two-thirds of that total, about $753,000. In fact, four of the top five individual contributors gave to committees opposing the amendments. Supporters gave about $363,770.

Top-contributing individuals who opposed the amendments gave most heavily in Oregon, which received about 40 percent of their contributions. Another 26 percent of their funds went to Utah, while 22 percent went to Ohio.

Top-contributing individuals who supported the amendments put 82 percent of their money into Michigan and Oregon, splitting it fairly evenly between the two states — $150,500 to Michigan and $148,000 to Oregon.

The table on the following page lists the individuals who gave $20,000 or more to ballot committees.

TABLE 9: TOP 20 INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS TO MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

HOMETOWN

INDUSTRY

POSITION

TOTAL

Bastian, Bruce W.

Orem, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Against

$178,000

Gill, Tim

Denver, CO

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Against

$150,000

Maltz, David

Beachwood, OH

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Against

$101,383

Nedelisky, Neil

West Linn, OR

Real Estate

For

$101,000

Wilson, Robert W.

Brooklyn, NY

Finance

Against

$100,000

Broekhuizen, Elsa

Prince Holland, MI

Securities & Investment

For

$75,000

Marquardt, Jane A.

Salt Lake City, UT

Lawyers & Lobbyists

Against

$47,670

Wallace, Carla

Louisville, KY

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Against

$44,004

Lee, William

Saginaw, MI

Computer Equipment & Services

For

$35,500

Gaby, Richard D.

Duluth, GA

Lodging & Tourism

For

$25,000

Lewis, Jonathan

Coral Gables, FL

Real Estate

Against

$25,000

Gilmour, Allan

Birmingham, MI

Automotive

Against

$25,000

Templeton, John

Bryn Mawr, PA

Christian Conservative

For

$25,000

Bisenius, James

Sherwood, OR

Securities & Investment

For

$22,000

Marquardt, Robert

Ogden, UT

Miscellaneous Business

Against

$22,000

Buttars, D. Chris

West Jordan, UT

Republican Officials/Candidates

For

$20,269

DeVos Sr., Richard

Grand Rapids, MI

Retail Sales

For

$20,000

Dewan, Michael

Putnam, MI

Retired

For

$20,000

Heiner, Hal

Louisville, KY

Real Estate

For

$20,000

Springer, Gerald N.

Chicago, IL

TV Production

Against

$20,000

Stryker, Jon

Kalamazoo, MI

Construction Services

Against

$20,000

Wexner, Abigail S.

Hudson, OH

Retail Sales

Against

$20,000

TOTAL TOP 20

$1,116,826

WHERE THE MONEY WENT

The ballot committees in the 13 states reported spending nearly $12.2 million on their activities. Not surprisingly with such an emotionally charged issue, proponents and opponents turned to broadcast advertising to make their arguments and sway the voters.

Committees reported spending $5.34 million on broadcast advertising. Those opposing the amendments spent $3.34 million in this category, or 62.5 percent of the broadcast advertising total. Committees supporting the amendments spent $2 million. Committees spent most heavily on broadcast advertising in Oregon, Ohio, Utah and Michigan.

The committees reported spending another $1.7 million on consultants, about $1 million on salaries, $1 million on direct mail expenses, and nearly $902,000 on get-out-the-vote efforts.

Committees in Michigan reported spending nearly $1.1 million of the $1.7 million spent on consultants, with pro-amendment committee Citizens for the Protection of Marriage spending all but $10,000 of the money paid to consultants in Michigan. The committee paid the Sterling Corp., a political consulting firm that works primarily with Republicans, nearly $985,000 for its services. It also paid $136,300 to National Petition Management Inc., which is a “full-service petition management company” that helps organizations collect signatures to qualify measures for the ballot, through paid signature-gathering efforts or by managing volunteer efforts.35

Direct mail expenses were far and away the highest in Oregon, where committees reported spending $637,200 on costs related to mailings. Arkansas committees trailed at $72,850.

Some companies did business with amendment committees in more than one state:

Four committees fighting the amendments paid a combined $177,500 for polling and research services from Decision Research, which describes itself as a “Democratic national public opinion research firm.”36
Its client list includes the Human Rights Campaign, the top contributor to anti-amendment efforts. No on Constitutional Amendment 36, the group opposing the Oregon amendment, reported payments of $88,341 to the company. Other committees that did business with this firm were the Don’t Amend Alliance in Utah, $37,585; Kentucky Families for Fairness, $31,920; and the Constitution Defense League in Missouri, $19,620.

Anti-amendment committees in three states hired Laguens Hamburger Stone for media and political advice, paying a combined total of nearly $89,700. The company’s client list includes numerous Democratic candidates, as well as labor, environmental and progressive groups. It also includes the Human Right Campaign and Basic Rights Oregon,37
which contributed heavily to the anti-amendment effort in Oregon. No on Constitutional Amendment 36 in Oregon paid the firm $76,634 for political consulting and ad preparation, while the Constitution Defense League in Missouri paid $6,700 for production of television ads and Kentucky Families for Fairness paid $6,350 for advertising.

CC Advertising Inc., a Virginia firm, received $70,200 from three committees supporting the amendments. The Yes! Marriage Amendment Alliance in Georgia paid $36,621 for telephone surveys and canvassing, while the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage paid $600 for an expense it described as a “phone blitz to churches.” The Defense of Marriage Coalition in Oregon paid the company $33,000 for surveys and polls.

David A. Smith Printing Inc. of Pennsylvania printed fliers and direct mail pieces for pro-amendment committees formed by the Traditional Marriage Crusade in six states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and Utah. The company received payments totaling about $6,270.

The Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage also paid Design 4 Advertising $600,000 for statewide TV advertising. Arlington Group member lists include an individual named Clint Cline who is listed as being associated with a company called Design 4.

LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD

The state-level ballot measures to constitutionally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were wildly successful in 2004, leading to some introspection among gay-rights groups and plans for how to change the direction of the debate in the future.

Meanwhile, supporters of the marriage amendments, particularly members of the Arlington Group, indicated they would not merely rest on their laurels.

IN SEARCH OF NEW STRATEGIES

Where conservative groups appeared more unified after their push for the amendments, the groups opposing them appeared to suffer effects that went beyond the polls. Following the decisive defeats in November 2004, some activists began questioning the effectiveness of the Human Rights Campaign and the support it had given to state groups.38
The campaign’s executive director, Cheryl Jacques, resigned after holding the post for less than a year.39

The battering that gay- and lesbian-rights advocates took at the polls also left key national groups looking for new ways to fight future attempts to further define marriage at the state level.

In a November 2005 speech, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman called on supporters to go on the offensive in the ballot-measure battle.

“First, let’s start proclaiming our moral values — personal liberty and equality for all — not only for those who are white, or rich, or who subscribe to a particular kind of Christian dogma,” he said, adding: “We must say over and over and over again, simply, directly and unambiguously that anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual and anti-transgender discrimination in all its forms is immoral.”40

Foreman suggested a plan that included having “non-gay people speak out with the same vehemence as they would if it was another minority under attack;” taking issue with putting the rights of a minority up for a popular vote; and including the religious community in the efforts.

“Now, more than ever, we need LGBT people of faith and their allies to speak to other religious people...and demanding — not pleading — for help,” he said.

The Human Rights Campaign, meanwhile, has outlined its Marriage Project on its Web site. Strategies include developing language to counteract fears about gay marriage and cultivate support for marriage equality; presenting the stories of gay and lesbian couples through advertising, legislative testimony, and media appearances; developing state-by-state strategies; and

Another prominent gay-rights advocate, Tim Gill, has created the Gill Action Fund to, among other things, fight future constitutional amendment attempts at the state level.42
Gill, who founded software company Quark Inc. and profited substantially from the sale of his share of the firm, established the Gill Foundation in 1994 to support gay and lesbian rights. He gave $150,000 of his own money to oppose the Oregon initiative in 2004.

His new political nonprofit organization will be funded solely by Gill and will work at the national level. Rodger McFarlane, executive director of the Gill Foundation, said the Gill Action Fund wasn’t a reaction to the 2004 elections, saying instead: “This is the evolution of Tim Gill. This doesn’t reflect anything more than his increasing influence and his own sense of responsibility as a citizen — and a very privileged citizen.”43

THE ARLINGTON GROUP’S CONTINUING INTERESTS

In his December 2004 column on the Renew America Web site, Paul Weyrich noted that the Arlington Group’s activities were part educational and part lobbying, and could involve turning recalcitrant lawmakers out of office through the election process.

“Only God knows what we will be able to accomplish or how long we will be together,” Weyrich wrote. “For now, the Arlington Group is the one bright spot in the body politick. It is the group of men and women, the leaders of the values voters, who seek to stem the tide of the culture decline of this once great nation.”44

He said the group planned to continue working on the marriage issue, and subsequent events show that it has, on many fronts.

For example, group members signed a letter to presidential adviser Karl Rove in January 2005, urging President Bush’s unequivocal support on the Federal Marriage Amendment. They indicated they would have trouble encouraging their members to support Bush’s controversial Social Security privatization plan if Bush was not willing to be more vocal in his support of the marriage amendment.

“We couldn’t help but notice the contrast between how the President is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where public opinion is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage?” the letter asked. “If so, it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue.”45

“When the Administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda,” the letter added, “it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings.”

Arlington Group activity also was apparent in Kansas and Texas, where voters approved marriage

amendments in 2005.

A March 2005 article in the Kansas City Star announced an upcoming rally planned by area clergy members and the Coalition of African-American Pastors, to support the proposed Kansas constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The article noted that the national leader for the effort was the Rev. William Owens, founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors and co-chairman of the Arlington Group.46

The Kansas Legislature ended up putting the amendment on the 2005 ballot, and it passed with 70 percent support. In 2004, Kansas legislators had defeated a similar proposal for a referendum. But the 2005 Legislature approved the referendum with the help of legislators elected in November 2004.47
During the Kansas marriage campaign, Focus on the Family gave at least $23,000 to the effort in support of the amendment.48

Texans approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage in November 2005. Kelly Shackelford of the Plano-based Free Market Foundation helped write the amendment and led the campaign in favor of it.49
Shackelford is also a member of the Arlington Group,50
and the Free Market Foundation is affiliated with Arlington Group member Focus on the Family.51

Texans for Marriage, a group promoting the amendment, published on its Web site a variety of print ads that could be run in local newspapers. The contact person for information about ad prices was Clint Cline of Design 4;52
Arlington Group member lists contain the name of a Clint Cline who is associated with a company named Design 4.53

And the effort to amend state constitutions is continuing in numerous states in 2006. Arlington Group influence can be seen in many of these states, primarily from Focus on the Family:

In Arizona, conservative social groups began a petition drive in May 2005 to place an amendment on the November 2006 ballot. The coalition backing the measure includes the Arizona Catholic Conference and the Center for Arizona Policy. The center is a family policy council listed on the Focus on the Family Web site;54
the center’s Web site notes that these councils are independent but also says it has been “selected and endorsed by Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family to be the Family Policy Council for Arizona. CAP is deeply grateful for Focus on the Family’s support through the provision of research, promotion, materials, prayers and guidance.”55
At the end of 2005, the center’s director, Len Munsil, stepped down to pursue a bid for governor in 2006.

In California, two groups launched initiative drives to put marriage amendments on the ballot. ProtectMarriage.com was promoting aninitiative to limit marriage to a man and a woman, while VoteYesMarriage.com’s initiative would ban gay marriages, as well as civil unions.

ProtectMarriage.com announced in December 2005 that it was dropping its effort, having failed to obtain the needed signatures.

ProtectMarriage.com was a project of California Renewal,56
a political nonprofit affiliate of the California Family Council.57
The California Family Council “serves as the statewide family policy council affiliated with Focus on the Family.”58

VoteYesMarriage.com, meanwhile, plans to forge ahead with its petition drive. It is currently raising money to hire professional signature gatherers.59

In Colorado, Focus on the Family spokesman Tom Minnery said the group would be involved in an effort to collect signatures to place an amendment on the Colorado ballot in 2006.60
Minnery was listed as an officer on all of Focus on the Family’s state marriage amendment committees in 2004.

In Florida, John Stemberger — head of Florida Family Action — created a committee to place an amendment on the state’s ballot in 2006. Florida Family Action is the political action committee of the Florida Family Council, an affiliate of Focus on the Family.61
Stemberger also is listed as a member of the Arlington Group.62

In Massachusetts, amendment supporters have been gathering signatures to put the issue on the November 2008 ballot. The group spearheading the drive is VoteOnMarriage.org, whose spokesman is Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. Mineau also is a member of the Arlington Group,63
and the Massachusetts Family Institute is an affiliate of Focus on the Family.64
Larry Cirignano of Catholicvote.org also has been active in organizing the petition drive among Catholic Churches in Massachusetts.65
Cirignano is also listed as an Arlington Group member.66

In Minnesota, the Minnesota Family Council has been backing a marriage amendment. It also organized a November 2005 gathering of pastors at which a Focus on the Family vice president encouraged the ministers to have their congregations join the fight.67
The Minnesota Family Council is the parent organization of the Minnesota Family Institute, a state policy council listed on the Focus on the Family Web site.68

In North Carolina, Arlington Group member Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Vice President Bill Maier spoke at a May 2005 rally organized by the North Carolina Family Policy Council and the group Called2Action, to pressure lawmakers to put a referendum on the ballot.69
The North Carolina Family Policy Council is a state policy center listed on the Focus on the Family Web site;70
Called2Action was later asked to join the Arlington Group.71

In Wisconsin, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin supported a proposal to place a referendum on the 2006 ballot. The institute is a Focus on the Family state policy council and, while independent, partners with other groups, including Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.72
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund are both Arlington Group members.

And Arlington Group members are not limiting themselves to the push on marriage.

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced in July 2005 that she would be leaving the court, the Washington Post reported that evangelical Christian groups planned to “rouse support for a thoroughly conservative replacement” by using “essentially the same game plan they used to win referendums against same-sex marriage.”73

At a nationally televised August 2005 event known as Justice Sunday II—God Save the United States and this Honorable Court, James Dobson of Focus on the Family urged viewers to defend Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, from U.S. Sens. Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy, as well as “all the other minions on the left.”74

The event focused on the direction of the nation’s high court and was sponsored by both Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council.75
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also spoke at the event, as did Arlington Group member Bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland, affiliated with the High Impact Leadership Coalition.

When Bush nominated longtime friend and current White House Counsel Harriet Miers to a second vacancy on the Supreme Court, numerous conservative groups opposed the nomination. After she withdrew, Bush’s subsequent nominee — Samuel Alito — drew praise from the same groups, including those involved with the Arlington Group.

“Everybody is totally on board,” Weyrich said in a Nov. 1 San Francisco Chronicle article, which also reported that the Arlington Group had held a conference call to discuss the new nominee.76

Many of the Arlington Group’s activities in 2005 involved what Focus on the Family head James Dobson described as “the battles that lie ahead:” passing the Federal Marriage Amendment; ensuring “the right outcome” on judicial appointments; making known the ideological beliefs of judges who are up for election; and passing state-level marriage amendments.77

But he also wrote in a piece on the Focus on the Family Action Web site that success on those issues is not enough: “As I continue to say, no matter how many ballot measures we pass, no matter how many constitutional amendments we support, no matter how many God-fearing and God-honoring women and men are elected and appointed to public office, until the hearts of the people change, we will not turn around this culture and restore our Biblical foundations. May we continue to collectively pray for this spirit of revival throughout America.”

ARKANSAS

Amendment 3 gained a spot on the Arkansas 2004 ballot following an initiative drive spearheaded by the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee and supported by Families First, the Arkansas Committee for Ethics Policy and Eagle Forum of Arkansas.78
The state already had a law banning same-sex marriages. But initiative supporters pushed for a constitutional amendment, which was endorsed by Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Seven ballot committees in Arkansas raised nearly $338,000 for the marriage amendment campaign, but just two committees raised the bulk of the money: the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee and Families First Action Committee. Both favored defining marriage in the state constitution. Only one group formed in opposition to Amendment 3, and it raised less than $3,000.

TABLE 10: ARKANSAS CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$226,051

Families First Action Committee

Pro

$73,374

Focus on the Family Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$17,380

Arkansas Committee for Ethics Policy (ACEP)

Pro

$13,392

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$3,529

Arkansans for Human Rights

Con

$2,952

Churches in Support of Amendment 3

Pro

$1,005

TOTAL

$337,683

Families First Action Committee received its funds largely from Church of Christ congregations, which gave $65,734, and some individuals. The Families First Foundation, its parent organization, serves Church of Christ leaders and members in Arkansas “as they attempt to address moral problems that plague the family.”79

The Arkansas Committee for Ethics Policy drew two-thirds of its money from Baptist churches.

All but $300 of the money reported by Arkansans for Human Rights, the sole committee opposing the amendment, came from contributions under the threshold amount for reporting the names of contributors.

Arlington Group Involvement

The Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee operated out of the same address as the Arkansas

Family Council, a group associated with Focus on the Family.80
The committee received nearly one-fourth of its identified funds — about $55,100 — from churches, including a number of Baptist churches. It reported $56,700 as small contributions under the threshold for reporting the names of contributors. The committee spent most of its money on salaries and mailings. Three of the committee’s paid staff members are also staffers for the Arkansas Family Council: Jerry Cox, the council’s executive director; Martha Adcock, the council’s staff attorney; and John Thomas, the director of the council’s Arkansas Physicians Resource Council.81
Thomas formerly served as a marriage and family policy analyst with Focus on the Family.82

Focus on the Family also created its own committee in Arkansas. Focus on the Family was the only contributor to its committee, making in-kind donations of goods and services for a mailing and air time for radio broadcasts on its affiliate radio stations in Arkansas.

Another Arlington Group member, Traditional Marriage Crusade, reported raising about $3,500, including $1,960 it reported receiving without listing any source of contributions. It reported spending about $1,650, including printing 10,000 fliers to encourage a favorable vote on the amendment.

TABLE 11: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN ARKANSAS, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Westside Church of Christ

Russellville, AR

Clergy

Pro

$20,000

Focus on the Family

Colorado Springs, CO

Christian Conservative

Pro

$17,380

Fellowship Bible Church

Little Rock, AR

Clergy

Pro

$10,000

Ligon Jr., Ed & Judy

Little Rock, AR

Steel

Pro

$10,000

Missouri Street Church of Christ

West Memphis, AR

Clergy

Pro

$9,066

Burklyn Co.

Warm Springs, AR

Education

Pro

$6,500

Fellowship Bible Church

Lowell, AR

Clergy

Pro

$6,000

Borbon, Laura C.

San Antonio, TX

Unknown

Pro

$5,000

First Baptist Church of Springdale

Springdale, AR

Clergy

Pro

$5,000

Soderquist, Don & Jo Ann

Rogers, AR

Commercial Banks

Pro

$5,000

TOTAL

$93,946

GEORGIA

Only two ballot committees raised money in Georgia, and both supported Amendment 1, which the Georgia Legislature placed on the November ballot as a referendum. Other groups were active in the Georgia election,83
but did not file campaign-finance reports. The state Christian Coalition published its usual voter guide, while the Georgia Baptist Convention aired television ads encouraging a vote for the amendment. Two groups opposing the amendment — Georgians Against Discrimination and Straights in Solidarity with Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights — conducted grass-roots efforts or rallies.

TABLE 12: GEORGIA CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Yes! Marriage Amendment Alliance Inc.

Pro

$75,115

Focus on the Family Georgia Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$17,650

TOTAL

$92,765

The Yes! Marriage Amendment Alliance Inc. received nearly all its money from four major contributors. Top individual contributor Richard Gaby operates a resort on a Caribbean island that is privately owned by the Van Andel family, co-founders of Amway. Gaby is married to Barbara Van Andel, daughter of Amway founder Jay Van Andel, who had traditionally given to Republican Party committees and conservative groups before his death in late 2004.84
Van Andel founded Amway with Richard DeVos Sr., who — along with other DeVos family members — contributed heavily to a committee supporting the same-sex marriage ban in Michigan.

Arlington Group Involvement

Arlington Group member Focus on the Family established a Georgia committee and gave it the entire $17,650 it raised, all through in-kind contributions of goods and services, including the costs of copying and sending a direct-mail piece.

Traditional Marriage Crusade also registered a committee with the Secretary of State’s Office — the first ballot committee formed on the measure — but did not file any disclosure reports.

TABLE 13: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN GEORGIA, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Capital Research Advisors

Sugar Hill, GA

Finance

Pro

$25,000

Gaby, Richard D.

Duluth, GA

Lodging & Tourism

Pro

$25,000

Focus on the Family

Colorado Springs, CO

Christian Conservative

Pro

$17,650

Reagan, Robert W.

Atlanta, GA

Insurance

Pro

$12,500

Stipe, Kevin M.

Alpharetta, GA

Insurance

Pro

$12,500

TOTAL

$92,650

KENTUCKY

After weeks of divisive debate, the Kentucky Legislature passed a referendum putting the amendment question on the ballot in November 2004. Seven committees formed in the subsequent campaign on Amendment 1. Six committees worked to support the measure, while one formed in opposition. The single committee opposing the measure, Kentucky Families for Fairness, raised more than all the other committees combined, but the amendment still passed resoundingly.

TABLE 14: KENTUCKY CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Kentucky Families for Fairness

Con

$522,864

Vote Yes for Marriage Committee

Pro

$135,493

Yes for Traditional Marriage

Pro

$41,308

Laurel County Citizens for KY Constitutional Amendment

Pro

$13,191

Focus on the Family Kentucky Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$7,449

Committee for the Defense of Traditional Marriage

Pro

$1,950

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$1,740

TOTAL

$723,995

Kentucky Families for Fairness reported nearly $523,000 in contributions — more than twice the $201,130 that committees promoting the measure reported raising. Nearly one-half its money, or about $157,700, came from organizations and individuals supporting gay and lesbian rights. About half of the funds from gay- and lesbian-rights advocates came from out of state, while half came from contributors within the state. Key Kentucky contributors were the Fairness Campaign, a gay-and lesbian-rights group that helped organize Kentucky Families for Fairness, and its founder, Carla Wallace. Wallace, whose father was heir to a pharmaceutical fortune,85
gave $43,754, while the Fairness Campaign gave $17,000.

Other contributors to Families for Fairness had ties to the gay and lesbian community. Carla Wallace’s family members gave a combined total of at least $38,175. And the Stinson-Lewis-Stinson Pride Foundation, a nonprofit that supports the arts and humanities,86
gave $40,000; the foundation is run by Ed Lewis and George Stinson, who operate a club for gay men.

The top individual contributor favoring the amendment, Hal Heiner, is a real estate developer and a Republican member of the Louisville Metro Council. He gave $20,000 to the Vote Yes for Marriage Committee.

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

National organizations, or individuals with ties to them, gave slightly less than $77,000 to the Kentucky amendment fight. Most of the money came from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which gave $73,000, and its employees or board members, who gave an additional $2,600.

Arlington Group Involvement

Arlington Group members were active in a variety of ways, supporting the legislation that placed the measure on the ballot, organizing rallies at the Capitol during key points in legislative debates,87
forming committees and contributing substantially to the effort to pass Amendment 1.

Kent Ostrander, executive director of the Family Foundation of Kentucky, not only organized much of the support for the legislation placing Amendment 1 on the ballot, but also was an officer of the Vote Yes for Marriage Committee. The Family Foundation of Kentucky, listed as a state policy council on the Focus on the Family Web site,88
gave $19,660 in in-kind contributions to the Vote Yes for Marriage Committee. Its parent organization, The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, gave another $14,395, also as in-kind donations of goods or services. And three Family Foundation employees gave a combined $1,200.

Focus on the Family established a Kentucky committee and reported raising $7,449 in in-kind contributions; it did not report any expenditures.

The Yes for Traditional Marriage Committee was associated with the American Family Association of Kentucky,89
an affiliate of the American Family Association,90
an Arlington Group member. The American Family Association of Kentucky gave by far the largest amount of itemized contributions to this committee — about $29,350 of the $41,300 it raised. The committee reported only $2,800 in itemized contributions from other sources.

In addition, American Family Radio gave $1,200 to the Vote Yes for Marriage Committee; the radio network is a division of the American Family Association.

TABLE 15: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN KENTUCKY, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$73,000

Wallace, Carla

Louisville, KY

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$43,754

Stinson-Lewis-Stinson Pride Foundation

Louisville, KY

Nonprofit Institutions

Con

$40,000

American Family Association of Kentucky

Louisville, KY

Christian Conservative

Pro

$29,344

Kentucky Campaigns

Louisville, KY

Business Services

Pro

$25,000

Heiner, Hal

Louisville, KY

Republican Officials

Pro

$20,000

The Family Foundation of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

Christian Conservative

Pro

$19,664

Fairness Campaign

Louisville, KY

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$17,000

Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

Christian Conservative

Pro

$14,395

DeVries, Sonja

Prospect, KY

TV & Movie Production

Con

$10,000

Southland Christian Church

Lexington, KY

Clergy

Pro

$10,000

Wallace, Henry

Prospect, KY

Agriculture

Con

$10,000

TOTAL

$312,157

LOUISIANA

Louisiana’s Amendment 1 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature. It drew support from four ballot committees, three of which reported raising money. A fifth committee, Forum for Equality, was the only group opposing the amendment. It raised $23,500, or about 35 percent of the money that all committees reported raising.

TABLE 16: LOUISIANA CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Forum for Equality

Con

$23,547

Louisiana Citizens for the Defense of Marriage Inc.

Pro

$22,750

Louisiana Family Forum

Pro

$14,824

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$5,542

Focus on the Family Louisiana Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$0

TOTAL

$66,663

About one third-of the Forum for Equality’s funds came from lawyers or law firms, while another $5,000 came from Club New Orleans, a club for gay men.

Louisiana Citizens for the Defense of Marriage received nearly half of its contributions from New Orleans developer Joseph Canizaro and his wife, Sue Ellen. Republican state Rep. Steve Scalise, who sponsored the legislation placing the referendum on the ballot, served as treasurer of this committee.

Top contributor Craig Hubbard gave $8,000 to the Louisiana Family Forum. Hubbard is chief financial officer of SPC Pool Corp., a wholesale distributor for the pool and spa industry.

Arlington Group Involvement

Arlington Group member Focus on the Family established a committee but reported no contributions. It did report spending $3,910: about $2, 900 for copying and postage for a mailing and slightly more than $1,000 on radio broadcasts for its affiliate radio stations in Louisiana.

The Louisiana Family Forum was the only ballot committee to report money from churches, raising nearly $4,500 of its $14,824 from churches. According to the Family Forum’s Web site, it maintains “a close working relationship” with Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council,91
also an Arlington Group member. Almost 81 percent of the Family Forum’s expenditures went to its political action committee to buy ads. The group spent another $5,614 on yard signs.

Traditional Marriage Crusade also formed a committee in Louisiana; most of its money came from out-of-state donors and was used to print letters, as well as 15,000 fliers and 25,000 inserts supporting the amendment.

TABLE 17: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN LOUISIANA, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Hubbard, Craig

Folsom, LA

Wholesale Trade

Pro

$8,000

Canizaro, Joseph C.

New Orleans, LA

Real Estate

Pro

$5,000

Canizaro, Sue Ellen

New Orleans, LA

Real Estate

Pro

$5,000

Club New Orleans

New Orleans, LA

Business Services

Con

$5,000

Evans & Clesi

New Orleans, LA

Lawyers & Lobbyists

Con

$3,750

Best & Koeppel

New Orleans, LA

Lawyers & Lobbyists

Con

$2,500

Benedon, Debora

Manalapan, NJ

Unknown

Pro

$2,000

Friends of Steve Scalise

Elmwood, LA

Candidate Committee

Pro

$2,000

Walk, Frank H.

New Orleans, LA

Construction Services

Pro

$2,000

Gillis, Charles W.

New Orleans, LA

Business Services

Con

$1,200

TOTAL

$36,450

MICHIGAN

Proposal 2 was placed on Michigan’s ballot by citizen petition after the Michigan Legislature failed to approve a referendum. The heated battle over Proposal 2 in this presidential battleground state drew $2.8 million into eight ballot committees, only one of which opposed the amendment. Several contributors were members of the Arlington Group, and some of the biggest payments twent to businesses with strong GOP ties.

TABLE 18: MICHIGAN CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Citizens for the Protection of Marriage

Pro

$1,626,582

Coalition for a Fair Michigan

Con

$854,212

Family Research Council Inc.

Pro

$186,397

Focus on the Family Michigan Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$73,649

Oakland Citizens to Protect Marriage

Pro

$27,397

Michigan Citizens Voting Yes for Marriage

Pro

$7,000

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$4,906

Marriage in the Public Interest Committee

Pro

$4,500

TOTAL

$2,784,643

Citizens for the Protection of Marriage raised the most among all committees, nearly $1.63 million or 58 percent of the money raised by all committees. The group was heavily financed by the Catholic Church. Seven Catholic dioceses gave an even $1 million, or 61 percent of the committee’s total. The church coordinated an effort in support of Proposal 2 through the Michigan Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s seven dioceses; Cardinal Adam Maida urged the state’s Catholics to vote in favor of the amendment in an eight-minute videotape that was distributed to Michigan parishes, along with suggestions for points to make in sermons and other materials on issues related to the amendment.92

The top individual contributor was Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, who gave $75,000 to Citizens for the Protection of Marriage. Broekuizen is the mother of Betsy Devos, who was serving as chairman of the Michigan Republican Party in 2004. Betsy DeVos is married to Dick DeVos, currently a Republican candidate for governor of Michigan. Dick DeVos’ father is Amway co-founder Richard DeVos Sr., who gave $20,000 to the committee. Two other DeVos family members gave a combined $30,000.

In addition, Elsa Prince Broekhuizen was a member of the board of directors of the Family Research Council.93
In fact, her late husband, Edgar Prince, was a co-founder of the group.94

Citizens for the Protection of Marriage paid the Sterling Corp. slightly more than $1 million. This company provides campaign consulting services, primarily to Republican clients. Former Sterling Vice President Jeff Timmer left the company in February 2005 to become executive director of the Michigan Republican Party.95

The committee also paid about $110,000 to Public Opinion Strategies, which bills itself as a Republican polling firm.96
Its Web site notes that it polled for both Citizens for the Protection of Marriage and the Ohio Republican Party on the marriage amendment. Marlene Elwell, who headed the committee, received nearly $69,000, while a firm at the same address, Elwell Consulting, received another $66,200. Elwell also is founder of Catholics in the Public Square, which describes itself as a group of Catholics who want to “share the beauty and richness of this Faith in the public arena through all venues available to us.”97

The sole committee opposing the amendment, Coalition for a Fair Michigan, raised $854,200, or 30 percent of the funds raised for the ballot fight. The largest segment of its itemized funds came from individuals and organizations supporting gay and lesbian rights — $286,625.

However, much of the committee’s money remains unitemized, exemplifying a problem typical of ballot measure committees. The coalition did not file detailed information about contributors on its required periodic reports.98
The state has notified the committee that it needs to file amended reports; a spokeswoman at the state office said those letters were returned as undeliverable. Phone numbers for the committee have been disconnected, as is often the case with short-lived political committees formed for one specific purpose.

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

By far the largest portion of the itemized contributions reported by the Coalition for a Fair Michigan came from the national Human Rights Campaign. The Washington, D.C.-based organization gave $231,081, or 42 percent of the $543,950 of contributions for which the committee provided the names of contributors. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force gave another $13,000.

Arlington Group Involvement

Five Arlington Group members were active in the Michigan effort:

The Family Research Council gave Citizens for the Protection of Marriage $190,000. The council is headed by Tony Perkins, a key leader of the Arlington Group. The Family Research Council also established its own ballot committee in Michigan, and gave it $186,397 — all the money the committee reported raising. Nearly all of this money was reported as going to the Citizens for Protection of Marriage to support the amendment.

Because the amount raised by the Family Research Council committee and the amount the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage reported receiving from the Family Research Council are so similar, it is possible that the disclosure reports involve the same pool of money.

Also, as noted earlier, top contributor Elsa Prince Broekhuizen also was listed as a member of the Family Research Council board of directors for the tax year ending Sept. 30, 2004.

Focus on the Family was active in two different ways. It established its own committee in Michigan, giving through in-kind contributions all of the $73,650 the committee raised. In addition, the Michigan Family Forum, a state policy center listed on the Focus on the Family Web site,99
gave $63,386 to Citizens for the Protection of Marriage. And the Public Interest Forum, an offshoot of the Michigan Family Forum, gave $19,500 — $15,000 to Citizens for the Protection of Marriage and $4,500 to the Marriage in the Public Interest Committee. This latter committee shares the same address as the Michigan Family Forum and the Public Interest Forum, and its treasurer was Brad Snavely, executive director of the Michigan Family Forum.100

The American Family Association, headed by Arlington Group member the Rev. Don Wildmon, provided nearly all of the money for Michigan Citizens Voting Yes for Marriage — $5,000 of $7,000. In addition, Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, an Arlington Group member himself,101
co-authored the amendment.102

Byron Voorheis III, a real estate developer, loaned Citizens for the Protection of Marriage $20,000 a few weeks after it formed in March 2004 and contributed another $2,000 in November. The committee repaid him $20,000 in July 2004. Voorheis’ name is on Arlington Group member lists, which identify him as Michigan chairman of Social Conservatives Bush-Cheney ’04.103

Traditional Marriage Crusade established a committee in Michigan and reported raising slightly less than $5,000, with most of it coming fromout-of-state contributors. It paid approximately $2,300 for a newspaperadvertisement and gave its parent organization, The Foundation for a Christian Civilization, $849 in leftover funds.

TABLE 19: TOP NON-INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS IN MICHIGAN, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Archdiocese of Detroit

Detroit, MI

Clergy

Pro

$538,100

Family Research Council

Washington, DC

Christian Conservative

Pro

$376,397

Human Rights Campaign

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$231,081

Diocese of Lansing

Lansing, MI

Clergy

Pro

$133,350

Diocese of Grand Rapids

Grand Rapids, MI

Clergy

Pro

$106,100

Diocese of Saginaw

Saginaw, MI

Clergy

Pro

$87,500

Focus on the Family

Colorado Springs, CO

Christian Conservative

Pro

$73,649

Michigan Family Forum

Lansing, MI

Christian Conservative

Pro

$68,386

Diocese of Gaylord

Gaylord, MI

Clergy

Pro

$49,250

Diocese of Kalamazoo

Kalamazoo, MI

Clergy

Pro

$47,450

TOTAL

$1,711,263

TABLE 20: TOP INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS IN MICHIGAN, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Broekhuizen, Elsa Prince

Holland, MI

Securities & Investment

Pro

$75,000

Lee, William

Saginaw, MI

Computer Services

Pro

$35,500

Gilmour, Allan

Birmingham, MI

Automotive

Con

$25,000

DeVos Sr., Richard M.

Grand Rapids, MI

Amway/Alticor

Pro

$20,000

Dewan, Michael

Putnam, MI

Retired

Pro

$20,000

Stryker, Jon

Kalamazoo, MI

Construction Services

Con

$20,000

DeVos, Douglas L.

Grand Rapids, MI

Amway/Alticor

Pro

$15,000

DeVos, Maria P.

Grand Rapids, MI

Amway/Alticor

Pro

$15,000

Katz, Nancy

Plymouth, MI

Laywers & Lobbyists

Con

$15,000

Blumenstein, Richard

Bloomfield Hills, MI

Real Estate

Con

$11,000

TOTAL

$251,500

MISSISSIPPI

Amendment 1 in Mississippi — placed on the ballot by the Legislature — drew little money. Only two committees formed, both created by groups with headquarters outside of the state and affiliated with the Arlington Group. They reported contributions of only $7,200.

TABLE 21: MISSISSIPPI CONTRIBUTIONS BY BALLOT COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Focus on the Family Mississippi Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$5,266

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$1,949

TOTAL

$7,215

Arlington Group Involvement

Focus on the Family created a Mississippi committee, providing all of the committee’s funds through in-kind contributions of goods and services. The committee did not report any expenditures.

Traditional Marriage Crusade reported contributions of $1,949. More than half — $1,000 — came from Anthony Lomangino of Hobe Sound, Florida, owner of Southern Waste Systems and Recycling. The committee also reported $749 in small contributions, made in amounts below the threshold for reporting the names of contributors. It spent $550 on printing fliers and envelopes, and spent another $615 on unitemized expenses.

MISSOURI

Missouri’s Amendment 2 won resoundingly at the polls, with 71 percent of the vote — despite the fact that supporters raised a mere fraction of the amount the opponents raised. Supporters of the amendment raised just $29,600, compared with the approximately $488,000 opponents raised. Although a handful of other states had enacted constitutional amendments defining marriage before 2004, Missouri was the first state to vote on the issue after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision allowing same-sex marriages. The Legislature placed the measure on the Aug. 3 ballot, in what was widely viewed as a nationwide test of the issue.

TABLE 22: MISSOURI CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Constitution Defense League

Con

$488,189

Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri

Pro

$21,499

Missourians for Marriage

Pro

$8,113

TOTAL

$517,801

The committee formed to oppose the amendment, the Constitution Defense League, raised 94 percent of the funds reported by ballot committees, as national gay- and lesbian-rights groups poured money into this first ballot-measure fight. Doug Gray, one of the top contributors to the committee, also served as its campaign manager, with $7,500 of his nearly $9,300 in contributions reported as in-kind donations of services or goods.

The Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri received the largest amount of its money from churches. And within that category, Baptist churches gave the most: $3,610 of the $6,785 in church funds.

Opponents used their campaign dollars to mount an advertising blitz, spending $293,500 on television and print advertising. Supporters of the amendments turned to churches to get the word out, using phone lists developed from church rosters, offering downloadable inserts for church bulletins on a Web site, and urging ministers to preach in support of the amendment.104

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

National groups supporting gay and lesbian rights gave $133,250 of the funds raised by the Constitution Defense League, or 27 percent of the committee’s total. The Human Rights Campaign alone put in $111,750. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force added $20,500 to the campaign, while the National Center for Lesbian Rights gave $1,000.

TABLE 23: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN MISSOURI, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Human Rights Campaign

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$111,750

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$20,500

ACLU of Eastern Missouri

St. Louis, MO

Ideology/Single Issue

Con

$11,500

Simon, Ray M.

St. Louis, MO

Construction Services

Con

$10,000

Gray, Doug

Kansas City, MO

Business Services

Con

$9,289

Committee for Fairness

Kansas City, MO

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$8,414

Tivoli Building LLC

St. Louis, MO

Real Estate

Con

$8,400

Pilkenton, Jil

St. Louis, MO

Retail Sales

Con

$7,026

Fischer, M. Peter

St. Louis, MO

Lawyers & Lobbyists

Con

$5,000

Wells, Doug

Kansas City, MO

Business Services

Con

$5,000

TOTAL

$196,879

MONTANA

Opponents to Montana’s Constitutional Initiative 96, placed on the ballot by citizen petition, outraised supporters but lost at the ballot box. Montanans for Families and Fairness raised $51,500, while two committees supporting the measure raised less than one-fourth of that amount.

TABLE 24: MONTANA CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Montanans for Families and Fairness/Against CI-96

Con

$51,498

Montanans for Marriage/For CI-96

Pro

$8,676

Focus on the Family Montana Marriage Amendment Committee

Pro

$2,194

TOTAL

$62,368

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force gave $10,000 to Montanans for Families and Fairness, or 37 percent of the contributions the committee received from individuals and organizations supporting gay rights and 19 percent of its total contributions. The Seattle-based Pride Foundation, which supports the gay and lesbian community in the Pacific Northwest, gave $1,000.

Arlington Group Involvement

Arlington Group member Focus on the Family established a committee in Montana and gave it $2,194 through in-kind contributions. It reported no expenditures.

Montanans for Marriage received 78 percent of its funds — $6,765 — as in-kind contributions from the Montana Family Foundation, which is associated with Focus on the Family.105
The foundation’s president, Republican state Rep. Jeff Laszloffy, authored the ballot petition and acted as a spokesman.106
He also served as treasurer for the Focus on the Family Montana Marriage Amendment Committee. In addition, a Voter Information Pamphlet statement from proponents directed readers to the Family Foundation’s Web site for more information.107

TABLE 25: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN MONTANA, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Pride Inc.

Helena, MT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$15,067

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$10,000

Montana Family Foundation

Laurel, MT

Christian Conservative

Pro

$6,765

Montana Human Rights Network

Helena, MT

Human Rights

Con

$3,959

Stranahan, Mary

Arlee, MT

Health Professionals

Con

$3,000

Focus on the Family

Colorado Springs, CO

Christian Conservative

Pro

$2,194

Milton, Maxwell

Helena, MT

Investor

Con

$1,000

The Pride Foundation

Seattle, WA

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$1,000

TOTAL

$42,985

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota’s Measure 1 was placed on the ballot through the initiative process. It drew relatively little in the way of campaign contributions, but passed with 73 percent of the vote.

The group opposing Measure 1, Equality North Dakota, raised $8,974. The North Dakota Human Rights Coalition gave almost half of the committee’s $4,150 in itemized contributions, at $2,000; the remainder of itemized contributions came from a handful of individuals. In addition, the committee raised another $4,824 in contributions that, individually, fell below the $100 threshold for reporting the names of contributors and the specific amounts they gave.

TABLE 26: NORTH DAKOTA CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Equality North Dakota

Con

$8,974

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$0

TOTAL

$8,974

Arlington Group Involvement

Traditional Marriage Crusade established a North Dakota committee, but reported no contributions. It reported only one $35 unitemized expense.

OHIO

The pitched battle over Issue 1 in a battleground presidential state involved not only large amounts of out-of-state money, but also a paid signature-gathering drive, court challenges, a split among state officials on the amendment, and a complaint over disclosure of the proponents’ finances.

Groups supporting the amendment raised about $1.2 million, outpacing the one committee that opposed the measure. Ohioans Protecting the Constitution/Ohians for Fairness, the committee opposing Issue 1, raised about $942,500, with 58 percent of the money coming from supporters of gay and lesbian rights. Two other big contributors to the anti-amendment effort were Abigail Wexner, whose husband owns The Limited clothing chain, and Nationwide Insurance Co. These Ohio-based companies had opposed the amendment, along with Ohioans for Growth & Equality, a statewide group that promotes business growth in Ohio “by advocating for equality under the law for all of its citizens.”108

And it appears that the Ohio Republican Party did some work on the marriage issue, although it did not make any direct contributions to any of the ballot committees. Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm, listed the Ohio Republican Party as a client for which it did polling work in favor of the Ohio marriage question.109
The party reported paying Public Opinion Strategies $221,500 for polling and another $18,750 for consulting work in 2004, but did not have to specify the candidates or issues that the work covered.

TABLE 27: OHIO CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage

Pro

$1,194,808

Ohioans Protecting the Constitution/Ohians for Fairness

Con

$942,421

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$7,953

TOTAL

$2,145,182

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

The Human Rights Campaign was the only national gay- and lesbian-rights group to contribute to Ohioans Protecting the Constitution. It gave $384,000, representing about 70 percent of the $547,100 given by gay-rights contributors. In addition, Bruce Bastian of Utah contributed $25,000 to the committee, while James Hormel of San Francisco gave $5,000. Hormel, whose grandfather founded the Hormel Meat Co., was the first openly gay person to be appointed U.S. ambassador to a foreign country, Luxembourg.

Arlington Group Involvement

Two Arlington Group members had high-profile roles in the Ohio amendment, while another formed a committee in support and a fourth contributed funds.

Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values led the push to gather signatures and also served as chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, the primary committee supporting the amendment.

Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell — an honorary co-chairman of President Bush’s Ohio re-election campaign110
— came out in support and did radio ads in favor of the amendment. Blackwell also sent a letter to 1,500 state GOP members in August 2004 saying that gay marriage would be important in “determining where Ohio’s electoral votes will go.”111

The Traditional Marriage Crusade formed a ballot committee, raising slightly less than $8,000.

Focus on the Family contributed slightly more than $1,000 in radio air time to the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage.

Burress heads up Citizens for Community Values, a state organization officially associated with Arlington Group member Focus on the Family;112
Burress also is listed in his own right as being an Arlington Group member.113
His group’s political action arm, Citizens for Community Values Action, was the largest contributor to the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, giving $1.18 million of the $1.19 million that the pro-amendment group reported raising. Because Citizens for Community Values Action is a political action committee and was not formed specifically for the ballot campaign, it did not have to report its contributors. Thus the sources of the funds it gave to the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage are unknown. Two Cincinnati lawyers and others filed a complaint in October 2005 against Citizens for Community Values, contending it concealed the source of the funds its PAC gave to the ballot committee.114
The commission is expected to hear the complaint in early 2006.

Citizens for Community Values Action also paid to have professional signature-gatherers collect signatures for the ballot petitions;115

again, these expenses were not reported because they were not paid by committees formed specifically to campaign on the ballot measure.

The Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage received only $11,520 that did not come from either Citizens for Community Values Action, Focus on the Family or Phil Burress. The remainder came from individuals giving amounts generally ranging anywhere from $5 to $350, with only three contributors giving more than that amount and none giving more than $2,000.

Blackwell’s role in the pro-amendment campaign was well documented, although his participation in the Arlington Group appeared far less well known. Blackwell’s name appears on lists of Arlington Group members, as affiliated with the American Center for Civic Character.116
That center’s Web site promotes its trademarked UncommonSense materials, described as “a conscience-affirming character ethics framework designed by and for leading adults to contemplate, apply in their lives, adopt within their work teams and easily commend to those around them.”117

Blackwell’s name is not found on the center’s Web site, but a link to the trademarked UncommonSense materials went to Blackwell’s Secretary of State Web site. The link no longer works, but does give an error message showing Blackwell’s state site. And the Secretary of State’s Web site does contain the UncommonSense material, under a section named Ohio Center for Civic Character, described as a collaborative, statewide project for leaders of all types to build character. An Ohio newspaper described the Ohio center as a project that “elicits pledges of moral character from candidates for public office.”118

The Traditional Marriage Crusade brought less than $8,000 into the costly battle, with half of that amount — $4,000 — reported in a lump sum with no indication of the source of the funds. Most of the rest of the money came from outside of Ohio. The committee spent $4,000 on unitemized expenses, as well as additional funds on printing. It gave about $480 in excess funds to its parent group, The Foundation for a Christian Civilization.

TABLE 28: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN OHIO, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Citizens for Community Values Action

Cincinnati, OH

Christian Conservative

Pro

$1,182,139

Human Rights Campaign

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$384,145

Maltz, David

Beachwood, OH

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$101,383

Bastian, Bruce W.

Orem, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$25,000

Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Columbus, OH

Insurance

Con

$20,000

Ohioans For Growth & Equality

Columbus, OH

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$20,000

Springer, Gerald N.

Chicago, IL

TV & Movie Production

Con

$20,000

Wexner, Abigail S.

Hudson, OH

Retail Sales

Con

$20,000

Forest City Enterprises Inc.

Cleveland, OH

Real Estate

Con

$15,000

Wolfe Enterprises Inc.

Columbus, OH

Printing & Publishing

Con

$15,000

TOTAL

$1,802,667

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma’s campaign on Question 711 was low cost, with opponents of the amendment raising slightly more than half the amount the proponents did.

TABLE 29: OKLAHOMA CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Oklahomans for the Protection of Marriage

Pro

$20,293

Protecting Oklahoma Families Fund

Con

$11,616

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$1,350

TOTAL

$33,259

Oklahomans for the Protection of Marriage, headed by Republican state Sen. James Williamson, reported raising $20,293. Of that, $19,000 came as contributions from a committee of the same name and $600 came from Williamson, who had sponsored the legislation that placed Question 711 on the ballot. The group’s Web site included a sample sermon and a list of individuals who had given their support to the amendment.119
The Web site did not indicate, however, whether the individuals had contributed financially to the committee.

The Protecting Oklahoma Families Fund received three-quarters of its money — $8,816 — from Cimarron Equality Oklahoma and its chairman, Terry Gatewood. Cimarron advocates for gay and lesbian rights.

The amendment passed with 76 percent of the vote and also played out in the Oklahoma U.S. Senate race, where Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Carson challenged Republican Tom Coburn, a former congressman. Carson was one of eight Democrats considered to be in highly competitive Senate campaigns.120

Coburn received assistance in his campaign from Arlington Group members. He also was listed as a member of the board of directors of the Family Research Council, an Arlington Group member.121

Arlington Group Involvement

The Traditional Marriage Crusade established a committee in Oklahoma, and a group headed by another Arlington Group member — conservative activist Gary Bauer — ran ads against Carson. The Traditional Marriage Crusade received nearly all of its money from its parent organization, The Foundation for a Christian Civilization. It spent its funds on printing and distributing fliers and a direct mail piece.

Well into the campaign, Bauer’s Americans United to Preserve Marriage ran ads against Carson and several other Democratic Senate candidates. The ad against Carson suggested he might someday be open to gay rights arguments.122
Carson, however, had publicly supported the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, and then-Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Cheryl Jacques said Carson did not have a record of supporting gay rights.123

Meanwhile, the Americans United to Preserve Marriage Web site singled Carson out among Senate candidates, with a home page section entitled Brad Carson: A Risk to Your Values124
that displayed a video questioning Carson’s commitment to faith-based groups and suggesting he supported gay partnerships. The Carson section was below two others on the Web site’s home page: one was entitled John Kerry: Too Liberal for America and another encouraged viewers to “Help Protect Marriage — Re-Elect George W. Bush.”

TABLE 30: TOP CONTRIBUTORS IN OKLAHOMA, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Oklahomans for the Protection of Marriage

Tulsa, OK

Christian Conservative

Pro

$19,000

Cimarron Equality Oklahoma

Oklahoma City, OK

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$6,300

Gatewood, Terry L.

Oklahoma City, OK

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$2,516

Foundation for a Christian Civilization

Spring Grove, PA

Christian Conservative

Pro

$1,295

Prater, Larry

Oklahoma City, OK

Health Professionals

Con

$1,000

TOTAL

$30,111

OREGON

Measure 36 was placed on the ballot following a successful initiative drive generally attributed to four Oregon ministers.125
It spurred high emotions and heavy giving from not only Oregonians, but groups and individuals around the country. Four committees raised slightly less than $5.4 million, with the bulk of the money going to the No on Constitutional Amendment 36 committee and the Defense of Marriage Coalition PAC.

Although Oregon was seen by many as the state most likely to reject the marriage amendment, 57 percent of the voters supported it. However, that margin of victory was the smallest for any of the 13 amendments that came to a public vote in 2004.

TABLE 31: OREGON CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

No on Constitutional Amendment 36

Con

$2,928,380

Defense of Marriage Coalition PAC

Pro

$2,414,438

Oregon Right to Life Issues PAC

Pro

$20,015

Religious Response Network

Con

$5,618

TOTAL

$5,368,451

The primary committee opposing the measure, No on Constitutional Amendment 36, raised nearly $3 million, garnering strong financial support from national and state gay- and lesbian-rights groups. Forty-eight percent of its funds, or about $1.4 million, came from organizations and individuals supporting gay and lesbian rights. It raised another quarter of a million dollars from contributions that were below the limit for reporting the names of contributors.

The main committee supporting the amendment, the Defense of Marriage Coalition, was an offshoot of the Oregon Family Council and reported the largest segment of its contributions as coming from small donations under the threshold for reporting the names and occupations of the contributors — nearly $530,000. Christian Copyright Licensing, which collects use fees for the owners of copyrighted church music and videos, gave $410,000. Gateway Communications, an advertising firm whose head — Tim Nashif — served as political director of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, gave another $120,400, but also received $130,684 in payments from the coalition.

Church-related contributors to the Defense of Marriage Coalition — outside of Christian Copyright Licensing — gave $276,800, led by Rolling Hills Community Church at $46,200, Mount Olivet Baptist Church at $20,000, and the City Bible Church at $16,105.

Many contributors to the committee had ties in one way or another to the City Bible Church, which operates two campuses in the Portland area:

The church’s senior pastor, Frank Damazio, was one of the leaders of the petition effort,126
along with Tim Nashif. Nashif, who is listed as a district pastor on the church’s Web site, is also a co-founder and political director of the Oregon Family Council. The Defense of Marriage Coalition was a business name of the Family Council.127

The committee’s largest contributor, Christian Copyright Licensing, is owned by Howard Rachinski, who is listed as an executive pastor on the Church’s Web site. The business gave $200,000 on Aug. 5, another $200,000 on Sept. 22 and $10,000 on Oct. 2. Rachinski contributed another $5,000 of his own money on Oct. 13.

Several contributors with the same names as ministers listed on the City Bible Church Web site gave a total of about $32,000, including the $5,000 from Rachinski and $1,000 from Nashif. Both gave on Oct. 13; in fact, $11,725 of the $32,025 from these contributors came in to the committee on either Oct. 12 or Oct. 13.

City Bible Church sponsors a ministry it calls Business with a Purpose, which encourages “Christian business owners, professionals & managers to use their talents, success and influence in the marketplace as their ministry for the kingdom of God.”128
Individuals and businesses listed on the Web site as participants in Business with a Purpose gave an additional $17,500 to support the amendment.

The Defense of Marriage Coalition paid the City Bible Church $332 for an expense listed as “reimbursement of employee health.”

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, a key Arlington Group member, met with Nashif and Damazio when he spoke to pastors in Portland.129
The two also were among a small group of people Dobson singled out for praise after the November election.130

All told, the committee raised $475,653, or nearly 20 percent of its total funds, from individuals and businesses with apparent ties to City Bible Church.

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

No on Constitutional Amendment 36 received about one-third of its contributions from three national gay- and lesbian-rights groups. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force contributed nearly $663,000, while the Human Rights Campaign gave about $313,000. The Log Cabin Republicans gave $40,000, making Oregon the only state in which it contributed to a ballot-measure fight in 2004.

In addition, the Horizons Foundation of San Francisco gave $10,000. The foundation supports programs and services for the gay and lesbian community, as well as efforts to advance their rights.131
The committee also received $150,000 from Tim Gill of Colorado. Gill founded the software company Quark, and his Gill Foundation supports gay and lesbian rights. WordPerfect co-founder Bruce Bastian of Utah gave $27,500 to fight the Oregon amendment, and gay-rights activist James Hormel of San Francisco gave $5,000.

Arlington Group Involvement

Focus on the Family contributed to the Defense of Marriage Coalition, despite initially saying it saw no need to become involved in the effort on Amendment 36.132
The organization gave $138,364 to the Oregon committee, ranking as its second-largest contributor; $110,000 was given in direct contributions, while the remainder was given as in-kind services or goods.

As noted above, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also spoke to Oregon ministers in April 2004.

Focus on the Family also organized an Oregon Marriage Amendment Committee, filing its

statement of organization with the Secretary of State’s office on Aug. 30. However, the group

UTAH

Amendment 3 in conservative, Republican-dominated Utah won, but with a smaller margin of victory than in many other states. Sixty-six percent of the voters supported the ban, which was placed on the ballot by the Utah Legislature.

The measure drew a surprising amount of money, considering many political observers believed its passage was a given. Ballot committees here raised $1.3 million, ranking Utah fourth among the 13 states. The four committees supporting the amendment raised slightly less than $507,000, or about two-thirds of the nearly $781,000 that the opponents raised.

TABLE 34: UTAH CONTRIBUTIONS BY COMMITTEE, 2004

BALLOT COMMITTEE

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Don’t Amend Alliance

Con

$773,186

Utahns for a Better Tommorrow

Pro

$354,113

The Constitutional Defense of Marriage Alliance

Pro

$131,354

Yes for Marriage

Pro

$20,813

Utah Lawyers for Sound Constitutional Amendments

Con

$7,554

Traditional Marriage Crusade

Pro

$643

TOTAL

$1,287,663

The main committee opposing the ban, the Don’t Amend Alliance, raised 62 percent of its funds from contributors supporting gay- and lesbian-rights. Most of the money came from Bruce Bastian and his Bruce W. Bastian Foundation. Bastian, a Utah resident and gay-rights activist, co-founded WordPerfect software. He gave $125,500 to the Don’t Amend Alliance, while his foundation gave $239,000.

More than one-third of the $131,350 raised by one committee in favor, the Constitutional Defense of Marriage Committee, came from several developers who gave a combined $50,000. Two Republican state legislators who served as co-chairmen of the committee gave another $23,300; Sen. Chris Buttars contributed about $20,250, while Rep. F. Lavar Christensen gave $3,000. Buttars had sponsored legislation to define marriage in the law and declare same-sex unions performed in other states void in Utah. Christensen had sponsored the resolution that placed the constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Another committee supporting the marriage amendment, Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, received about half of its $354,000 from a group called Marriage Education Initiatives. The source of those funds has remained under question; Marriage Education Initiatives formed as a nonprofit corporation on Oct. 18, the same day it gave a $50,000 contribution to the ballot committee.134
Scott McCoy, campaign manager of the Don’t Amend committee, filed a complaint with the Utah Attorney General’s office alleging that Marriage Education Initiatives was formed to circumvent state campaign-finance laws and hide the donors to Utahns for a Better Tomorrow. The complaint is under review.

National Gay- and Lesbian-Rights Giving

Three national groups gave a combined total of $65,000 in Utah. The national Human Rights Campaign kicked in $50,0000, while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force gave $10,000 and the National Center for Lesbian Rights gave $5,000.

The contributions represented less than 10 percent of the total funds that the Don’t Amend Alliance raised and about 14 percent of the total it received from organizations and individuals supporting gay- and lesbian-rights.

Arlington Group Involvement

The Traditional Marriage Crusade created a Utah ballot committee. All of its contributions came from its parent organization, The Foundation for a Christian Civilization, as in-kind contributions to cover printing and postage expenses.

TABLE 35: TOP NON-INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS IN UTAH, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Bruce W. Bastian Foundation

Orem, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$239,000

AK Holding Co.

Provo, UT

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate

Pro

$175,000

Marriage Education Initiatives

Salt Lake City, UT

Ideology/Single Issue

Pro

$171,000

Human Rights Campaign

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$50,000

Equality Utah

Salt Lake City, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$17,500

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Washington, DC

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$10,000

SJ Fox Ridge LLC

Lehi, UT

Real Estate

Pro

$10,000

VS Fox Ridge LLC

Lehi, UT

Real Estate

Pro

$10,000

Willow Cove Apartments

South Jordan, UT

Real Estate

Pro

$10,000

Jackie Biskupski Campaign

Salt Lake City, UT

Candidate Committee

Con

$9,000

TOTAL

$716,600

TABLE 36: TOP INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS IN UTAH, 2004

CONTRIBUTOR

LOCATION

INDUSTRY

PRO/CON

TOTAL

Bastian, Bruce W.

Orem, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$125,500

Marquardt, Jane A.

Salt Lake City, UT

Lawyers & Lobbyists

Con

$47,670

Marquardt, Robert

Ogden, UT

General Business

Con

$22,000

Buttars, D. Chris

West Jordan, UT

Republican Official

Pro

$20,269

Matheson, Frank

Salt Lake City, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$12,440

Heap, Ted

Lehi, UT

Real Estate

Pro

$10,000

Jaffa, Scott

Park City, UT

Construction Services

Con

$10,000

Sandlin, Julie L.

Draper, UT

Real Estate

Pro

$10,000

Solomon, Elizabeth

Park City, UT

Gay & Lesbian Rights

Con

$10,000

Roylance, Susan

Salt Lake City, UT

Christian Conservative

Pro

$6,750

TOTAL

$274,629

APPENDIX A

ARLINGTON GROUP MEMBERS

The following people were listed as Arlington Group members on the Ohio Roundtable Web site and on a Jan. 18, 2005, letter to presidential adviser Karl Rove that was attributed to the group.

2. “Focus on the Family Action Takes on Swing-State Senators Over FMA,” Focus on the Family Action [on-line]; available from http://www.focusaction.org/actvities/a0000010.cfm ; Internet; accessed Dec. 8, 2005, and David D. Kirkpatrick, “The 2004 Campaign: Gays; Marriage Between Gays Becomes Issue in Campaigns,” The New York Times, Oct. 30, 2004, sec. A, p. 16.

11. “Arlington Group Members,” American Policy Roundtable [on-line]; available from http://www.ohioroundtable.org/untangling/arlington_Group.html ; Internet; accessed Nov. 21, 2005. A Jan. 17, 2006, phone call to the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office to confirm Blackwell’s participation in the Arlington Group was referred to the office for Blackwell’s current gubernatorial campaign; a campaign staffer said Blackwell participates in the group and has received phone calls from the Arlington Group.

20. “About Crusade: A Magazine of the American TFP,” The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property [on-line]; available from http://www.tfp.org/magazine/about_htm ; Internet ; accessed Dec. 12, 2005.

22. “The Idea of a Counter-Revolution: Who We Are,” The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property [on-line]; available from http://www.tfp.org/who_we_are/the_counter_rev.html; Internet; accessed Sept. 9 , 2005.

98. The Institute was able to obtain some of the missing information from the 24-hour reports the committee was required to file when it raised contributions of $200 or more from a single contributor in the two-week period before the election; however, the committee reported raising another $310,262 but provided no detailed information on the contributors.